Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Sep-09-2009
ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The present petition is filed by petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are respectively accused Nos. 1 to 4 in PCR No. 82/2003 on the file of the learned JMFC, Anekal, that is filed by respondent No. 3 herein namely Narayanappa S/o.late Sonnappa against these petitioners and also the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein namely Ravishankar and Cheluvaraj, then Station House Officers of Baiyappanahalli and Attibele Police Stations of Anekal Taluk.2. The petitioners herein have sought for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against them in the said PCR No. 82/2003 and also FIR issued in Crime No. 23/2003 of Baiyyappanahalli Railway P.S., which came to be registered pursuant to the order dated 18.11.2003 passed Under Section 156(3) Cr.PC directing the said Police to register the case and investigate into the matter.3. Stated in brief, the undisputed facts leading to the present petition are as under:(a) The deceased Sonnappa, the father of respondent No. 3 Narayanappa d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jun-19-2009
Reported in : ILR2009KAR2589; 2009(6)KarLJ205
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In all these Writ Petitions the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 27(2) and (3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter far short referred to as the Act') as well as the procedure followed by the District and State Consumer Forum in issuing arrest warrants against them. Therefore, all these Writ Petitions axe taken up for consideration together and disposed of by this common order. However, for proper appreciation of the rival contentions, the facts pleaded in W.P. No. 700/2008 and the statement of objections filed in W.P. No. 18465/ 2006 by the Union of India which was adopted by them as the statement of objections in all the Writ Petitions, is set out as under.2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is in the business of land development and construction. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the land owners for development of land bearing Sy. No. 4848 and 2878 at 6th Main, V.V. Puram, Devaraja Moha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Dec-07-2009
A.S. Pachhapure, J.1. The unsuccessful defendant has approached this Court in appeal challenging the judgment and decree of maintenance granted by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents and confirmed in the appeal, by the lower appellate Court.2. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under:The parties will be referred as per their rank in the Trial Court for the purpose of convenience.The respondents herein were the plaintiffs whereas the appellant is the defendant before the Trial Court. The first plaintiff and the defendant are Christians and were married on 27.4.1977 as per the custom of their community. They led a happy marital life for some time and they have three issues. The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the son and daughter. Later, there were differences amongst each other. The defendant was addicted to bad habits and developed illicit relationship with other women. He started consuming liquor and was subjecting the first plaintiff to cruelty and harassm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-27-2009
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. By consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, all these matters were listed and heard together and matters are disposed of by this common order.2. W.P. No. 936/2006 is filed by one Sri C.J. Singh seeking for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 & 2 viz., State of Karnataka and Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act (hereinafter called as KT & CP Act in short) and make such inspection and pass orders taking into consideration the concept of planning in respect of the intended construction activity being put up by respondent No. 7, (hereinafter called as a Pvt. Ltd., Company) in Sy. No. 19/2, 147/4 and 148/2 of Pattandur Agrahara, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore and further direct the respondent No. 4, Deputy Commissioner, to take action against 7th respondent-a Pvt. Ltd. Company for having violated by it, the conditions imposed in the conversion order, quash the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-25-2009
ORDERHuluvadi G. Ramesh, J.1. Petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings pending before the VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore in CC 2566/2009 arising out of PCR 9814/2008.2. According to the petitioners, the respondents were the members of the Managing Committee of the Karnataka State Cricket Association for the year 1995-96, 1997-1998. It was during their term the civil work contract was given to one C.A. Varadaraju who has completed the work. They came to know that the work executed by Varadarju was of poor quality. However, civil suit was filed by Varadarju only for recovery of money before the Civil Court, The 1st petitioner as Secretary filed a written statement as against the suit filed for recovery of amount. In the written statement filed, alleging that the petitioner had made baseless allegations against the respondents and that it amounted to per se defamation and also stating that another written statement is filed by the 2nd petitioner during August 2006 casting aspersions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-23-2009
B.V. Nagarathna, J.1. These writ appeals are filed against the order dated 3.7.2009 passed by the learned single judge. Since these Writ Appeals raise common questions of law they have been heard together and are disposed of by this order.2. Writ Appeal Nos. 2489-2498/09 have been filed on behalf of Hotel Empire while W.A. Nos. 2724-2733/09 have been filed by Osea International Hotel and W.A. No. 2775-2784/09 have been filed by Bruhat Bengaluru Hotels Association. In all these writ appeals the order of the learned single judge dated 3.7.2009 have been called in question. The common issue raised in these writ appeals is with regard to the validity of the order dated 19.5.2009 issued by the second respondent who is the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, which have been produced as an Annexure-A to the writ petitions.3. According to the appellants, in Writ Appeal Nos. 2489-2498/2009, they are engaged in hotel business and have a chain of hotels and restaurants called 'Hotel Empire' in var...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-12-2009
Reported in : 2010(1)KarLJ467
ORDERJawad Rahim, J.1. The learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent are present.2. Both sides file an application under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the N.I. Act') reporting settlement between the parties and seek permission to compound the offence.3. Considering the nature of proceedings and the terms agreed upon permission is granted. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is compounded. As envisaged under Sub-section (8) of Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, it shall have the effect of acquittal of the accused.4. In these terms the revision is disposed of.Date: 1-12-2009...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-09-2009
Arali Nagaraj, J.1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 75/2006 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this appeal the correctness of the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 21st September 2007 passed in the said case convicting him for the offence under Section 376 IPC and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of S.L for a further period of three months.2. Stated in brief, the case of the prosecution as alleged in Ex.P1 complaint dated 15.11.2003 filed by PW1 prosecutrix is as under:(a) The prosecutrix viz., Kum.Renuka, daughter of Lakshmana, aged about 14 years has been studying in 8th standard in Swamy Vivekananda School at Hiriyur Town, District Chitradurga. The accused Nataraj has been a teacher in the said school. The prosecutrix had been in friendly terms with the accused while studying...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-06-2009
Reported in : ILR2009KAR4310
ORDERA.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. Petitioner is facing criminal charge before the J.M.F.C., Ramdurga in C.C. No. 160/2007 (P.C. No. 35/2007) for an offence punishable Under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Act for short). It is alleged that, the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 7,20,000/- on 23/03/2007, which on deposit in Bank was returned unpaid. A complaint was filed by the respondent Under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging that the petitioner has committed an offence Under Section 138 of the Act. Complainant deposed as P.W.1. Two other witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 2 and 3. The case was posted for examination of the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, who is the accused, has filed an application for referring the cheque in question for an examination by an expert contending that he had issued a blank cheque and a bond paper to the complainant, who has written thereon the amount etc. according to his choice and the writings in the cheque...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-27-2009
ORDERArali Nagaraj, J.1. The revision petitioner herein, who is accused No. 13 in SC No. 9/2001 on the file of the learned Special Judge, XXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as Trial Court' for short) has challenged in this revision petition the correctness of the order dated 7.8.2008 passed in the said case rejecting his application, filed under Section 30 of Karnataka Prisons Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'Prisons Act' for short), seeking direction to the Senior Superintendent, Central Prison, Bangalore, to permit him (accused) to receive homely food from outside the prison.2. The said application was opposed by the respondent - CBI by filing written objections to it. After hearing both the sides, the Trial Court passed the impugned order rejecting the said application. Therefore, the revision petitioner - accused has challenged the correctness of the said order.3. At the outset, Sri B.R. Nanjundaiah, the learned Senior counsel an...
Tag this Judgment!